UNITED NATIONS,
November 6 -- In order to requisition Darfur peacekeeping infrastructure
services, in a way that resulted in U.S.-based Lockheed Martin getting a $250 million
no-bid contract, the UN earlier
this year brought in six outside procurement officials from NATO, also on a
sole-source basis. As with the Lockheed contract, lower level UN officials raised concerns,
that such outsourcing was not normal, that NATO is not a UN-registered vendor
and that there would be a lack of accountability to the UN by the NATO
personnel. As reflected by the Headquarters Contract Committee minutes, which
Inner City Press has obtained on an exclusive basis from whistle-blowers and now
places online here,
the HCC recommended the consideration of "other mechanisms" and "other sources
of procurement officers." Despite this recommendation, the sole source NATO
contract went through, as did the $250 million contract to Lockheed Martin.

Inner
City Press on Tuesday asked the head of the UN's Department of Peacekeeping
Jean-Marie Guehenno about the claim that the contract had to go sole source (or
"single source," as Mr. Guehenno called it) only after the Security Council's
July 31 resolution on the Darfur hybrid force. An April 19 memo from the UN's
Jane Holl Lute argued even then for "a sole source contract with PAE," Pacific
Architects and Engineers, the Lockheed subsidiary. Click here for
the memo, and here from the HCC minutes, which recite that the U.S. Department
of State, after its own sole source deal with Lockheed's PAE, had finally put
the contract out to bid, with DynCorp also a finalist. Only then did the UN take
over (or "inherit," as Mr. Guehenno put it) the contract, also on a sole source
basis with Lockheed's' PAE.

At
Tuesday noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe
to explain how the previous defense of the no-bid contract, that competition was
not possible after the July 31 Security Council resolution, with the April 19
date of Ms. Lute's request to go sole source to PAE. Ms. Okabe, as best as Inner
City Press could make out, maintained that the July 31 Security Council
resolution was the answer. Video here.
She said that "procurement" made the decision. A UN source told Inner City
Press, anonymously due to fear of retaliation, that contracts are steered not by
Procurement Services but by those who design the specification -- in this case,
the NATO staff brought in, themselves on a sole-source basis. Later on Tuesday
Mr. Guehenno repeated that "the formalities for requesting" cannot precede a
Council resolution. Asked by Inner City Press about Ms. Lute's April 19 memo,
Guehenno said, "I would have to check."

News analysis: Here's
another thing to check, about which Inner City Press also asked Mr. Guehenno:
issues of overcharging by PAE for airfield services in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo in 2001. "You are right," Guehenno said. But then why the push to
give PAE this sole source contract in April 2007, even before the Security
Council resolution? And based on the American-to-American perception of the
contract, diplomatic source indicate that the call that the Department of Field
Support go to a developing country has only grown, and has been strengthened by
this irregular no-bid contract.

Guehenno
was also asked about comments by "one French official" that "Paris was very
surprised" by the UN's sole source contract to Lockheed Martin's PAE. [This
"French official's" comments have been confirmed to Inner City Press by multiple
sources; the official is being left unnamed out of respect for these other
sources, who may have be subject to an "off the record" or "not for attribution"
agreement, to which Inner City Press is not a party.] Mr. Guehenno replied that
"I haven't explained to them how peacekeeping works," a comment subject to at
least two different interpretations. One observer of the process, anonymous due
to fear of retaliation, describe the process this way: the U.S. couldn't
continue on a no-bid basis with PAE, and so had the UN take over the contract,
and the payments, still on a no-bid basis. Developing.

The UN's Office
of Legal Affairs, in a May 31, 2007 memo also placed online
here, said "we are
concerned about the lack of authority or control the UN would have in respect of
contractor's personnel carrying out UN procurement functions." Ironically, Inner
City Press on November 6 was told by numerous well-placed sources that OLA has
become so concerned about the November 2 publication
of HCC minutes about the Lockheed contract that
a legal analysis is being solicited or prepared to argue wrongdoing by Inner
City Press and this correspondent in publishing the minutes. The argument, Inner
City Press is told, would center on the "Notice of Confidentiality" on the
minutes, which states that "authorized UN staff who are provided with a copy of
this document, or otherwise come into its possession, are hereby informed that
the document is for official UN use only and may not be shared with any party
external to the UN." The UN is free to so-label its documents, but the press is
not bound by the labeling. In fact, investigative journalism is based on
obtaining documentary evidence of possible institutional irregularities.
Journalists consulted Tuesday about OLA's theory were scornful. One, however,
noted that the UN has in the past sought to intimidate whistle-blowers even by
searching phone records; intimidation of journalists, he said, would be
something new. Watch this site.